Please, inform yourself before making such confident claims to others.
Re: If by "looking good", you mean "looking like i
on
Inside OS X Mavericks
·
· Score: 1
But what I can't have is natural scrolling for my trackpad where it makes sense, but normal scrolling for my scroll wheel, where its just wrong.
Absolutely correct. Mod points for this comment! If you have a laptop and switch between trackpad and mouse, you cannot differentiate scrolling directions between the two devices. In fact, if you check 'natural scrolling' on trackpad prefs this changes the settings under the mouse prefs. I submitted this as a bug and Apple kicked it back as 'performing as expected'. I suspect Apple implemented natural scrolling in a way that allows them to easily have different devices use different scrolling directions. Very very very annoying.
I have engineered and mixed songs for decades. My training over the years makes me very aware of when I'm listening to something compressed. But who cares? Me, of course, but to you it might not matter.
* Can you really tell the difference between * - A Picasso and a reproduction? - Genuine marble and simulated materials? - HD video and Film projection? - $500 shoes and $50 knockoffs?...
I'm happy that technology and storage has allowed me to retain my music (previously on CD) as lossless files for my enjoyment today. For some of my friends, they are completely happy with 256k AAC or MP3 files. That's the way it goes!
Just saying.
I've no doubt there are an abundance of false identities and corporate logins, but what about dead people, people who created accounts and abandoned them, etc?
Yeah I love rocking out to the sounds of, what sounds to me like white noise and bursts of random screeching.
Just because you COULD run this hack doesn't mean it is in any way plausible.
Did anyone note the monthly price on these gimmicks? It seems to me that this is just another fancy set of toys to extract the last remaining dollars from the elderly.
It has been suggested that an electron microscope could be used to read and interpret any patterns that were not fully overwritten by the process. Theoretically this can be done - but in practice it is little more than a myth.
If data could be recovered at the rate of 1 bit per second - this process would take 9,259 days (or over 25 years) to recover 100 MB of information. This is assuming that you could read back and interpret each bit correctly, for example on data that has never been overwritten. If you are trying to read "traces" of data that were previously written there, in the most likely scenario you may be able to correctly recover, interpret and identify 30-40 percent of the signals.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WOULD RECOVER 30-40% OF THE DATA - BUT ONLY 30-40% OF THE INDIVIDUAL BITS IN EVERY CHARACTER.
A "10101011" pattern may come back as "?010?01?" and every single character on the drive would be scrambled in a similar manner. The mathematical probability of decrypting such a puzzle into usable data is infinitesimal.
It could be claimed that data can be recovered from any drive in the world with a guaranteed success rate of 50% "at the bit level". This sounds interesting until you consider that if you overwrote the entire surface of the drive with either all "0" or all "1" and since the original drive contained nothing but patterns of binary ones and zeros - half the bits would be correct - but obviously no data could be recovered.
In conclusion, overwritten data cannot be read back or recovered by any current disk drive technology or laboratory technique.
By your logic cell phones, with their built in address books, pose the greatest risk to child abduction ever. Not only is there personal information about the owner, but a complete database of their friends and family, as well as text messages to and from the owner to further profile the victim.
You attacked Dr_Barnowl's comment with an arrogant attitude (a desire to show off your alleged knowledge of recording costs). You mis-interpreted his comment, and I felt the spirit move within me to call you on it.
Wait, you don't think "Dr_Barnowl's" comment wasn't arrogant? I think your point is now made, and lost on me.
Do you even know what a hammered dulcimer and celtic harp are? They are not the latest beat-loop libraries. Please check wikipedia if you're not hip to those instruments.
Sorry... bzzz... try again with your attack. I played in many capacities in a string orchestra for about seven years, including 2nd chair.
Your argument seems to be about the subjective value of talent.
My argument was simply that the original poster's assertion that the actual retail price of an album/song should be directly commensurate to the original recording costs is ridiculous. In the same way that you might say that one should be able to buy an indie film for a fraction of the price of a studio picture because the studio picture cost so much more to produce. The value of the creative product is subjective, but one can easily argue that the indie film should cost more than the studio picture since it helps a more diverse group of filmmakers realize their vision than the studios do.
I hate Clear Channel as much as the next guy, although I doubt you know anyone who was personally fired by them like I do. More importantly, your attack on me makes as little sense to the original discussion of internet royalty rates as the post I was responding to.
Your suggestion that "A record by Ms Spears just requires her to squawk into a mic in a quiet room for a bit and the geek with the autotuner to put in an all-nighter." supports your argument that classical music somehow costs more money to produce than, well, every other type of recorded music shows your complete ignorance on the topic. As a professional recording engineer and producer with two decades of experience who has worked with not only popular artists like J Lo but also with relatively unknown folk artists playing hammered dulcimer and celtic harp, I would like to clarify that your idea of the where recording budgets are spent is beyond ridiculous. Your blanket statement that if it was recorded by an orchestra instead of a smaller ensemble of any sort it must be "a superior product" pretty much proves your bias as well.
I don't think I need to explain myself further as there are numerous pages on the web to fully explain how a recording budget is spent, but I thought it important to explain to anyone who might read your post that your assertions are not only silly but false as well.
As a happy customer of Tivo for several years now I am quite disappointed to find that it will not work for me if I move to Australia.
I have been doing a little research on MythTV (again) and still am off put by the complexity of it. The Tivo box really is my OS X to MythTVs Windows, in my opinion. But an even bigger issue to me is if I had to start paying a monthly fee to Tivo since they dropped their lifetime support fee option.
ps. The article was so lean on details I wonder if the writer even touched either a Tivo or MythTV box.
Check out this link on Apple's support site. I work with dozens of PowerBooks and iBooks and have never experienced the problem you describe unless there was a problem with the antenna.
Those are compelling arguments but as tempted as I was to originally make the analogy of FOSS to the music business, I don't think it's that strong. There are some parallels to be sure, but there are also some pretty big differences.
Without beating the dead horse here, I would like to simplify my point by saying that the critical difference between FOSS vs. Big Software and P2P vs. Big Music is that music doesn't have the apparent monetary value to the consumer that software does.
If I steal a piece of software I am stealing something that I know has tangible value. Manhours were spent thinking of 'the solution', manhours were spent learning the tools needed to create 'the solution', manhours were spent creating 'the solution', manhours are spent refining and supporting 'the solution', and my manhours are saved by using 'the solution'.
On the other hand, if I steal a piece of music I cannot truly see the value of it. Sure manhours were spent writing, rehearsing, recording, producing, refining, mixing, and distributing 'the music'. But hey, I played a little guitar in college and it doesn't seem that tough. I've got a neighbor who plays at the coffee shop on weekends for tips. And I enjoy music on the radio and I don't have to pay for it. So there are numerous cultural indicators that tell me that music isn't really worth that much. (Until I get sticker shock at Virgin Megastore)
I think the most appropriate analogy is TV vs. HBO
I got TV for free but I grew tired of what the networks were bringing me. So I decided to pay for HBO to get the content I want instead.
As a music consumer I got tired of what radio stations were bringing me. So I decided to go on the internet and get the content I want for free?!?!
I'm not suggesting I have the magic bullet that repairs this disconnect in people's consciousness. But I am suggesting that repeating the mantra that musicians should feel guilty for wanting to get paid for their services is a bit ridiculous. I am also suggesting that people who think musicians should only expect to make money in live venues are woefully misguided in their perception of how the world works. For example, the band XTC never toured. Should I be deprived of their music because of that?
I can tell you the way the music died... It died when the musicians became the money-grubbing motherfuckers that most of them were told to become.
And sports died when athletes started to get million dollar contracts
And movies died when actors started to get million dollar contracts
And television died (was it alive?) when actors started to get million dollar contracts
And literature died when writers started to get million dollar advances
And... you get the picture
I'm tired of your whine. Adapt or die, this is called progress. I'll admit, I work in the music business as recording engineer and I am getting out because it just wasn't the business it was 17 years ago when I started. But I can tell you music does not need to be free in order for an artist to be sincere in his art. On the contrary, what you suggest would actually kill the music business.
The point you seem to miss, that David Crosby so ineptly tried to make, is that the record companies of yore existed to make money off of musicians because musicians weren't savvy enough to both make good music and pay their rent. It's just that simple. The musicians needed a good record company and the record companies needed good musicians. But the industry has grown into a very large and powerful congolomerate. And as we know, when a company has to think about it's shareholders first people tend to get greedy.
Can I say it again? I am so tired of non-musicians saying that musicians are millionaires and musicians that aren't shouldn't care about money
Let's not forget that almost all modern radio stations use computers to do their ID and commercial breaks these days. These computer based audio workstations will compress or expand content slightly to work around changes in the schedule. For example, let's say an interview goes a little long during a live show. The computer will, over the course of the program, compress pre-recorded content slightly to make up for the overage. It's exactly the same thing that happens on TV. On a lot of daytime syndicated shows like Oprah it is almost indiscernible during the show, but if you watch the credits roll at the end you will notice a little "jump" every few seconds. That's the compressor pulling out a frame of video to squeeze the show. Shorter show... more commercials!
In New York City, Clear Channel has been experimenting with electronic signs over Subway entrances. Throughout the city these boxes are constantly down or have faulty portions of the display. Like this one I understand that Windows Embedded is cheap to buy and code for and support, but if it isn't stable what's the point? I say, like electronic voting, this is using technology in an environment where it isn't needed and will invariably be more problematic than the technology it is replacing.
If one were going to make a broad comment like "every American should have broadband" by a certain date, it seems to me like the point has been missed completely.
Public schools are woefully behind in technology. This should not be a surprise to anyone. But the bigger issue, I think, is that what President Bush has suggested is that every American should have Broadband in their home by 2007. It would seem to me that if students aren't learning computers in school, the only advantage to having Broadband at home would be to spend all day on Slashdot (not that there's anything wrong with that) wishing you could find work or get into college with your underdeveloped skills.
Slashdot Mirror
You can dismiss the study as bullshit, but can you explain away things like Americans "overwhelmingly" support expanding background checks after Sandy Hook, yet the NRA has overridden the public will on the issue?
I'm sure you can craft another thoughtful argument. You've looked at it in detail and everything!
Why do you say "There is no evidence for that" when there absolutely is evidence for that?
A shattering new study by two political science professors has found that ordinary Americans have virtually no impact whatsoever on the making of national policy in our country.
Please, inform yourself before making such confident claims to others.
But what I can't have is natural scrolling for my trackpad where it makes sense, but normal scrolling for my scroll wheel, where its just wrong.
Absolutely correct. Mod points for this comment!
If you have a laptop and switch between trackpad and mouse, you cannot differentiate scrolling directions between the two devices. In fact, if you check 'natural scrolling' on trackpad prefs this changes the settings under the mouse prefs. I submitted this as a bug and Apple kicked it back as 'performing as expected'. I suspect Apple implemented natural scrolling in a way that allows them to easily have different devices use different scrolling directions.
Very very very annoying.
I have engineered and mixed songs for decades. My training over the years makes me very aware of when I'm listening to something compressed. But who cares? Me, of course, but to you it might not matter.
* Can you really tell the difference between * ...
- A Picasso and a reproduction?
- Genuine marble and simulated materials?
- HD video and Film projection?
- $500 shoes and $50 knockoffs?
I'm happy that technology and storage has allowed me to retain my music (previously on CD) as lossless files for my enjoyment today. For some of my friends, they are completely happy with 256k AAC or MP3 files. That's the way it goes!
Just saying. I've no doubt there are an abundance of false identities and corporate logins, but what about dead people, people who created accounts and abandoned them, etc?
Yeah I love rocking out to the sounds of, what sounds to me like white noise and bursts of random screeching. Just because you COULD run this hack doesn't mean it is in any way plausible.
Did anyone note the monthly price on these gimmicks? It seems to me that this is just another fancy set of toys to extract the last remaining dollars from the elderly.
There is no reason for the DoD spec other than paranoia.
Check out this article from Seagate Recovery Services
It has been suggested that an electron microscope could be used to read and interpret any patterns that were not fully overwritten by the process. Theoretically this can be done - but in practice it is little more than a myth.
If data could be recovered at the rate of 1 bit per second - this process would take 9,259 days (or over 25 years) to recover 100 MB of information. This is assuming that you could read back and interpret each bit correctly, for example on data that has never been overwritten. If you are trying to read "traces" of data that were previously written there, in the most likely scenario you may be able to correctly recover, interpret and identify 30-40 percent of the signals.
THAT DOES NOT MEAN YOU WOULD RECOVER 30-40% OF THE DATA - BUT ONLY 30-40% OF THE INDIVIDUAL BITS IN EVERY CHARACTER.
A "10101011" pattern may come back as "?010?01?" and every single character on the drive would be scrambled in a similar manner. The mathematical probability of decrypting such a puzzle into usable data is infinitesimal.
It could be claimed that data can be recovered from any drive in the world with a guaranteed success rate of 50% "at the bit level". This sounds interesting until you consider that if you overwrote the entire surface of the drive with either all "0" or all "1" and since the original drive contained nothing but patterns of binary ones and zeros - half the bits would be correct - but obviously no data could be recovered.
In conclusion, overwritten data cannot be read back or recovered by any current disk drive technology or laboratory technique.
By your logic cell phones, with their built in address books, pose the greatest risk to child abduction ever. Not only is there personal information about the owner, but a complete database of their friends and family, as well as text messages to and from the owner to further profile the victim.
I'm pretty sure this is to make sure you don't go to the bathroom during commercial breaks. If you do, they add a charge to your monthly bill.
You attacked Dr_Barnowl's comment with an arrogant attitude (a desire to show off your alleged knowledge of recording costs). You mis-interpreted his comment, and I felt the spirit move within me to call you on it.
Wait, you don't think "Dr_Barnowl's" comment wasn't arrogant? I think your point is now made, and lost on me.
Do you even know what a hammered dulcimer and celtic harp are? They are not the latest beat-loop libraries. Please check wikipedia if you're not hip to those instruments.
Sorry... bzzz... try again with your attack. I played in many capacities in a string orchestra for about seven years, including 2nd chair.
Your argument seems to be about the subjective value of talent.
My argument was simply that the original poster's assertion that the actual retail price of an album/song should be directly commensurate to the original recording costs is ridiculous. In the same way that you might say that one should be able to buy an indie film for a fraction of the price of a studio picture because the studio picture cost so much more to produce. The value of the creative product is subjective, but one can easily argue that the indie film should cost more than the studio picture since it helps a more diverse group of filmmakers realize their vision than the studios do.
I hate Clear Channel as much as the next guy, although I doubt you know anyone who was personally fired by them like I do. More importantly, your attack on me makes as little sense to the original discussion of internet royalty rates as the post I was responding to.
Your suggestion that "A record by Ms Spears just requires her to squawk into a mic in a quiet room for a bit and the geek with the autotuner to put in an all-nighter." supports your argument that classical music somehow costs more money to produce than, well, every other type of recorded music shows your complete ignorance on the topic. As a professional recording engineer and producer with two decades of experience who has worked with not only popular artists like J Lo but also with relatively unknown folk artists playing hammered dulcimer and celtic harp, I would like to clarify that your idea of the where recording budgets are spent is beyond ridiculous. Your blanket statement that if it was recorded by an orchestra instead of a smaller ensemble of any sort it must be "a superior product" pretty much proves your bias as well.
I don't think I need to explain myself further as there are numerous pages on the web to fully explain how a recording budget is spent, but I thought it important to explain to anyone who might read your post that your assertions are not only silly but false as well.
Corrected: From my experience, most "normal" computer users don't know the difference between a CPU and Powersupply.
As a happy customer of Tivo for several years now I am quite disappointed to find that it will not work for me if I move to Australia.
I have been doing a little research on MythTV (again) and still am off put by the complexity of it. The Tivo box really is my OS X to MythTVs Windows, in my opinion. But an even bigger issue to me is if I had to start paying a monthly fee to Tivo since they dropped their lifetime support fee option.
ps. The article was so lean on details I wonder if the writer even touched either a Tivo or MythTV box.
Check out this link on Apple's support site. I work with dozens of PowerBooks and iBooks and have never experienced the problem you describe unless there was a problem with the antenna.
nyud.net mirror here
Use it!
It doesn't run on Safari (Width (0) and Height(0) cannot be less than or equal to 0) or Internet Explorer (NoSuchFieldError: GREEN).
I am wondering why a Java app like this wouldn't work seamlessly across platforms. Are they relying on bits of code that are platform specific?
I am so bored with being 'Mac Marginalized'
Those are compelling arguments but as tempted as I was to originally make the analogy of FOSS to the music business, I don't think it's that strong. There are some parallels to be sure, but there are also some pretty big differences.
Without beating the dead horse here, I would like to simplify my point by saying that the critical difference between FOSS vs. Big Software and P2P vs. Big Music is that music doesn't have the apparent monetary value to the consumer that software does.
If I steal a piece of software I am stealing something that I know has tangible value. Manhours were spent thinking of 'the solution', manhours were spent learning the tools needed to create 'the solution', manhours were spent creating 'the solution', manhours are spent refining and supporting 'the solution', and my manhours are saved by using 'the solution'.
On the other hand, if I steal a piece of music I cannot truly see the value of it. Sure manhours were spent writing, rehearsing, recording, producing, refining, mixing, and distributing 'the music'. But hey, I played a little guitar in college and it doesn't seem that tough. I've got a neighbor who plays at the coffee shop on weekends for tips. And I enjoy music on the radio and I don't have to pay for it. So there are numerous cultural indicators that tell me that music isn't really worth that much. (Until I get sticker shock at Virgin Megastore)
I think the most appropriate analogy is TV vs. HBO
I got TV for free but I grew tired of what the networks were bringing me. So I decided to pay for HBO to get the content I want instead.
As a music consumer I got tired of what radio stations were bringing me. So I decided to go on the internet and get the content I want for free?!?!
I'm not suggesting I have the magic bullet that repairs this disconnect in people's consciousness. But I am suggesting that repeating the mantra that musicians should feel guilty for wanting to get paid for their services is a bit ridiculous. I am also suggesting that people who think musicians should only expect to make money in live venues are woefully misguided in their perception of how the world works. For example, the band XTC never toured. Should I be deprived of their music because of that?
I can tell you the way the music died... It died when the musicians became the money-grubbing motherfuckers that most of them were told to become.
And sports died when athletes started to get million dollar contracts
And movies died when actors started to get million dollar contracts
And television died (was it alive?) when actors started to get million dollar contracts
And literature died when writers started to get million dollar advances
And... you get the picture
I'm tired of your whine. Adapt or die, this is called progress. I'll admit, I work in the music business as recording engineer and I am getting out because it just wasn't the business it was 17 years ago when I started. But I can tell you music does not need to be free in order for an artist to be sincere in his art. On the contrary, what you suggest would actually kill the music business.
The point you seem to miss, that David Crosby so ineptly tried to make, is that the record companies of yore existed to make money off of musicians because musicians weren't savvy enough to both make good music and pay their rent. It's just that simple. The musicians needed a good record company and the record companies needed good musicians. But the industry has grown into a very large and powerful congolomerate. And as we know, when a company has to think about it's shareholders first people tend to get greedy.
Can I say it again? I am so tired of non-musicians saying that musicians are millionaires and musicians that aren't shouldn't care about money
Let's not forget that almost all modern radio stations use computers to do their ID and commercial breaks these days. These computer based audio workstations will compress or expand content slightly to work around changes in the schedule.
For example, let's say an interview goes a little long during a live show. The computer will, over the course of the program, compress pre-recorded content slightly to make up for the overage. It's exactly the same thing that happens on TV. On a lot of daytime syndicated shows like Oprah it is almost indiscernible during the show, but if you watch the credits roll at the end you will notice a little "jump" every few seconds. That's the compressor pulling out a frame of video to squeeze the show. Shorter show... more commercials!
In New York City, Clear Channel has been experimenting with electronic signs over Subway entrances. Throughout the city these boxes are constantly down or have faulty portions of the display. Like this one
I understand that Windows Embedded is cheap to buy and code for and support, but if it isn't stable what's the point?
I say, like electronic voting, this is using technology in an environment where it isn't needed and will invariably be more problematic than the technology it is replacing.
If one were going to make a broad comment like "every American should have broadband" by a certain date, it seems to me like the point has been missed completely.
Public schools are woefully behind in technology. This should not be a surprise to anyone. But the bigger issue, I think, is that what President Bush has suggested is that every American should have Broadband in their home by 2007. It would seem to me that if students aren't learning computers in school, the only advantage to having Broadband at home would be to spend all day on Slashdot (not that there's anything wrong with that) wishing you could find work or get into college with your underdeveloped skills.
Putting the cart before the horse, aren't we?
Yep. Clued me to one thing. I may have a newer userid, but I can roll out the most cliched joke on slashdot with the best of 'em.
I chuckled anyway.
New here to slashdot, eh?